tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post9045898007141141963..comments2023-11-05T00:59:10.828-07:00Comments on decorabilia: in the key of LD: a riff on reader questions and commentsJim Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-3713590006759037172008-01-18T23:11:00.000-08:002008-01-18T23:11:00.000-08:00Anonymous, good question. I think it's wise to us...<B>Anonymous</B>, good question. I think it's wise to use a two-pronged social contract analysis: one part domestic fulfillment, <A HREF="http://decorabilia.blogspot.com/2008/01/international-law-as-social-contract.html" REL="nofollow">one part international.</A> If the state has an obligation to preserve its citizens' security, since that's what they've traded their rights for, a la Locke or Hobbes, then it definitely and concretely ties into this resolution.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-1581164819140194122008-01-18T19:19:00.000-08:002008-01-18T19:19:00.000-08:00Hey Jim,Just as a general question. Could I use p...Hey Jim,<BR/>Just as a general question. Could I use protecting the state as a criterion and say the Social Contract justifies the use of force to combat a threat because justice is achieved through society and without society we would be reduced to the state of nature. Did that make sense??<BR/><BR/>ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-70173103845839445882008-01-02T19:58:00.000-08:002008-01-02T19:58:00.000-08:00K = Kritik. NC = Negative Constructive (case). T...K = Kritik. NC = Negative Constructive (case). They're pretty important terms. Google "kritik," and you'll see what it's about.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-74232702069465302072007-12-30T17:08:00.000-08:002007-12-30T17:08:00.000-08:00i'm in my second year as a debater but i'm still u...i'm in my second year as a debater but i'm still unfamiliar with terms. what is K and NC and all that? are they important terms? are there any other terms i should be aware of?Roneehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06110306969284282706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-64292428871329290212007-12-14T14:15:00.000-08:002007-12-14T14:15:00.000-08:00anonymous, according to Morgenthau, for the politi...<B>anonymous</B>, according to Morgenthau, for the political realist, the supreme value is prudence--acting cautiously, weighing each situation as it comes, rather than trying to apply a universal moral principle. Your PR case would work against any universalist Aff.<BR/><BR/>One of the things about nuclear weapons is that they eliminate traditional boundaries of sovereignty. A border defended by an army is useless to stop a ballistic missile--and, even further, worthless against the far-reaching effects of fallout. So your contention could be shored up even further.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-87281545897751057052007-12-14T10:55:00.000-08:002007-12-14T10:55:00.000-08:00Ive got a criterion and one argument but I have hi...Ive got a criterion and one argument but I have hit a standstill any help?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>C-Political realism-all nation-states are motivated by national interest. All states seek to preserve their political autonomy and their territorial integrity. <BR/><BR/>C1:<BR/>A. The use of Military force in response to a military threat supports political realism <BR/>-The interest of the nation to preserve territorial integrity and countries that pose a threat jeopardize this integrityAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-85614240088340036372007-12-13T14:48:00.000-08:002007-12-13T14:48:00.000-08:00Some ideas to get around the ethnocentricity of an...Some ideas to get around the ethnocentricity of any US-determines-Justice argument as AFF<BR/><BR/>1. It says 'for the US" in the resolution<BR/><BR/>2. The nation the military force is used against is not specified; therefore it is impossible to use a definition/vc of justice that applies to that nation<BR/><BR/>3. Even if you are looking at it universally, somthing can be just AND unjust. If it is just for the united states but not for the other nation, it falls into this. Something that is both Just and Unjust is still just. (The Neg has to prove it is not just, not that it is unjust.)<BR/><BR/>-LD n00bAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-45037099162818954152007-12-10T15:02:00.000-08:002007-12-10T15:02:00.000-08:00I'd run it against any case that claimed the US wa...I'd run it against any case that claimed the US was uniquely able to justify the response. I'd also think about running it in general--combined with a contention or two regarding the necessity of multilateral or international action. I definitely think that some Affs are going to have the whiff of ethnocentrism.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-4058156879987752792007-12-10T13:16:00.000-08:002007-12-10T13:16:00.000-08:00Affirming the resolution bites Western ideals of r...Affirming the resolution bites Western ideals of right and wrong. Furthers neo-liberalism. I can't decide if I wanna run it as a K, or an NC. Or if i even wanna run it at all. Feedback, please.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-19017808235721550512007-12-04T03:40:00.000-08:002007-12-04T03:40:00.000-08:00First of all, thanx for responding to all 5.What I...First of all, thanx for responding to all 5.<BR/><BR/>What I meant by number 3 was essentially this: Say you use the typical definition of "giving each his due." You could argue how everyone is due his/her right to life, and that in any military action against a country strong enough to pose a military threat to the united states, both combatants and non-combatants would be killed. Even if you accepted that the nukes would be used after aquired (which is certainly a stretch)it still does not give everyone thier due for the United States to use military intervention to stop the nuke's aquisition- even though it gives alot more what they are due than if nuclear weapons were actually used, it still does not give each his due when the because someone is going to get killed, proubably including at least 1 inocent; thus, not everyone gets what they are due. (It would be fun to try to get an aff to argue military action doesn't kill people.) <BR/><BR/>It would proubably be more useful on crystalization, but it still could be interesting and pretty much garentee a neg win, if neg can deffend the definition.<BR/><BR/>-LD n00bAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com